In this editorial, LinuxDevices.com founder Rick Lehrbaum offers his “reflections” on the recently published (Microsoft-funded) Embedded Market Forecasters (EMF) report which claims embedded development projects based on Microsoft’s “Windows Embedded” operating system platforms (specifically, Windows CE .NET and Windows XP Embedded) are completed 43% faster and at 68% lower cost, on average, compared with similar projects using Embedded Linux.
Reflections on a Microsoft-funded anti-embedded-LInux Report
2003-07-31 Windows 11 Comments
Microsoft fund a skewed report comparing embedded Linux to embedded Windows…..No way…I just can’t believe that Microsoft would do such a thing!
Seriously, why does the press even give recognition to stuff like this? The press knows it is biased, Linux users know it is biased, practically everybody knows it is biased. Let’s just hope that those poor fools who don’t know will wise up to Microsoft’s antics here.
are you kidding me….Microsft if the most unbiased, truthful, honest, secure and quality oriented companies on the face of the earth.
Here at Brazil we got both Advertisement and Journalism councils that policies this king of stuff. Funded articles MUST be identified as such, or as advertisements.
Things like that hurts the unaware consumer, and it is really a shame that Microsoft use it against Linux. In the end it only proves that they’re really scared.
(sorry my poor english)
Your quality control is excellent as well.
Well, it *can* be true. The article even states that the embedded kits from MS are “one of the finest available.” From what I’ve tested, I’d have to agree with this point. Further, the driver support and IDE are also very important to development. I think that MS is superior in these respects. License fees, of course, is where MS get’s hit – hard… but up to the point of production, I wouldn’t discount that MS may have a better, faster, cheaper solution.
At least Microsoft is honest about it. Look at IBM, they hyped embedded linux so that you buy their chipsets and their websphere tools —- BUT IBM wouldn’t use embedded linux in their commercial products. IBM’s position of patents and linux is 100% the SAME as Microsoft’s position.
Or SUN, who just warns you about not using linux at all, then secretly invested in SCO stocks.
I rather have Microsoft unapologetically stated their honest position.
If you have $43bn in your bank account, you can fund many reports in your way. If not, take it easy.
Well, as someone who has ran significant projects using both, I must say that both Microsoft and Linux has their strengths and weaknesses. So it all depends on what you are looking for.
There are two levels of costs- development and product cost. Development cost between the two, from my opinion, is a wash and is based purely on the development teams capability and background. For example, for a group of programmers who only know linux, it would be more expensive to develop on Windows since there will be a learning curve. Vice-versa, for a team of windows programmers developing with linux, the same would be true. So part of the decision has to be based on the team’s capability.
Of course, when compared to a free product, even a dollar is more when it comes to product cost…
Another point they don’t make is that WinCE only runs on certian platforms–far fewer than linux. Most CE projects are really only hobby-level compaired to equivelant linux projects. After all, most CE hardware makers take a pre-defined reference model[design and software already done] Change the packaging and maybe add some features. Most Linux stuff involves starting more from scratch with both hardware and software.
So really, Win CE should be much faster–note they don’t tell how long [43% less of 12 weeks or 36 months?] I’d venture that the Win Ce projects still take too long…only because with winCE you only get to play in a MS approved sandbox of hardware [and are at their mercy for support, though not so much anymore] You probably spend time with the MS solution working around their “features” as much as you would “tweaking” linux from scratch.
For a long-term product, Linux would still seem to be better…MS goes thru versions of CE like hotcakes. They’ve burned thru 4-5 since CE started only 3-4 years ago…for embeded devices like machine controllers, telcom equipment, etc, you expect stuff to remain servicable for 10-15 years minimum. I don’t see that happening with CE. Linux may not be the same in 10 years either, but you have 100% of the Source to your product. You don’t “have” to do anything on some other “supplier” companies whim. A “supplier” should never have that kind of power over customers.
They’ve burned thru 4-5 since CE started only 3-4 years ago.
I’m no CE fan (in fact i just got a new Palm yesterday), but CE started much earlier. I have a PDA, manufactured in 1996, runs WinCE1.0. I’ve seen even older PDAs running WinCE, possibly made in 1995 even, or early 1996. Check for yourself, Compaq C140, oldschool, back when WinCE still ran on a few processors, in this case the SH3. The sad thing is that the 40mhz SH3 feels slower than my Palm, which runs at a lower frequency. But the C140 DID have a PCMCIA port.
As most you already know, I am no Microsoft fan, however, there is a small and microscopic piece of truth within this piece of propaganada which would make Pravda green with envy.
If you are a small business with a one off product then Windows CE *could* be the way to go, HOWEVER, if you are a large business such as Sony and wish to have something unique and spread across an array of devices, Linux/QtEmbedded *might* be the way to go.
At the end of the day, ultimately you use the tool which will provide the best result for you customer because ultimately, if the customer isn’t happy you can say good bye to any job in the future. Once a customer has been burnt by a bad product, it is *VERY* hard to win them back.